Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

    I have been noticing the committee chair continuing to suggest something might change in the way they arrange this tournament. I am curious if the posters here have any ideas of what they might do, or if anyone has a pet project of their own.

    I have one possibility, but it turns out quite lengthy to write it all out, with example, so I want to wait for another post.

    Any one?

  • #2
    Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

    Top 4 PWR seeds host 4 team "regional" tournaments, followed by the neutral site frozen four. Would that work?

    Yes, I realize that Harvard might still be playing way out west somewhere!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

      As long as ESPN approves the format the NCAA will return in 2017 to a model that is virtually the same as what was used from 1988 through 1991, higher seeds hosting the rounds preceding the FF in a best two of 3 format. The tournament will be three weekends long and there will be no break between the second weekend and the FF. That is what most of the influential coaches want. It will obviously go a long way to ensure butts in seats and a good environment for all the games.

      I actually would advocate for the format that Crimson on the Glass suggests. Home ice + a best 2/3 as I believe the NCAA is gravitating towards gives far too much of an edge for the higher seeds. I believe the top four seeds have earned the right to have a home game, but a one game winner moves on format will limit that and make upsets a little more likely. The biggest problem with this is the fact that there are just too many NCAA teams that have no way of hosting 3 other schools should they end up as a one seed. And not just schools with no hockey history.

      The empty seats we're going to see in the Compton in a few days will be the final nail in the coffin for truly neutral regionals. (truly neutral thanks to NDs rabid underachieving. They make Bart Simpson proud).

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

        Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
        As long as ESPN approves the format the NCAA will return in 2017 to a model that is virtually the same as what was used from 1988 through 1991, higher seeds hosting the rounds preceding the FF in a best two of 3 format. The tournament will be three weekends long and there will be no break between the second weekend and the FF. That is what most of the influential coaches want. It will obviously go a long way to ensure butts in seats and a good environment for all the games.

        I actually would advocate for the format that Crimson on the Glass suggests. Home ice + a best 2/3 as I believe the NCAA is gravitating towards gives far too much of an edge for the higher seeds. I believe the top four seeds have earned the right to have a home game, but a one game winner moves on format will limit that and make upsets a little more likely. The biggest problem with this is the fact that there are just too many NCAA teams that have no way of hosting 3 other schools should they end up as a one seed. And not just schools with no hockey history.

        The empty seats we're going to see in the Compton in a few days will be the final nail in the coffin for truly neutral regionals. (truly neutral thanks to NDs rabid underachieving. They make Bart Simpson proud).
        This is interesting. I did not realize a 2-out-of-3 series was a possibility.

        I was seeing more of a 3 weeks like this:
        Week One: All Top8 seeds host a single elimination
        Week Two: 2 Neutral Sites host 2 Quarterfinals each, with the overall bracket set so as to maximize the possibility of eastern teams being in the east and western teams in the west. This is single-elimination also
        Week Three: Frozen Four as now

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

          I would have thought the change would be to bring back the smoke filled room, in order to institute "more drama" into the selection process.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

            Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
            As long as ESPN approves the format the NCAA will return in 2017 to a model that is virtually the same as what was used from 1988 through 1991, higher seeds hosting the rounds preceding the FF in a best two of 3 format. The tournament will be three weekends long and there will be no break between the second weekend and the FF. That is what most of the influential coaches want. It will obviously go a long way to ensure butts in seats and a good environment for all the games.

            I actually would advocate for the format that Crimson on the Glass suggests. Home ice + a best 2/3 as I believe the NCAA is gravitating towards gives far too much of an edge for the higher seeds. I believe the top four seeds have earned the right to have a home game, but a one game winner moves on format will limit that and make upsets a little more likely. The biggest problem with this is the fact that there are just too many NCAA teams that have no way of hosting 3 other schools should they end up as a one seed. And not just schools with no hockey history.

            The empty seats we're going to see in the Compton in a few days will be the final nail in the coffin for truly neutral regionals. (truly neutral thanks to NDs rabid underachieving. They make Bart Simpson proud).
            Don't be shocked if they set a seating minimum, forcing schools with smaller capacities to play at neutral sites.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

              Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
              As long as ESPN approves the format the NCAA will return in 2017 to a model that is virtually the same as what was used from 1988 through 1991, higher seeds hosting the rounds preceding the FF in a best two of 3 format. The tournament will be three weekends long and there will be no break between the second weekend and the FF. That is what most of the influential coaches want.
              Is there anything behind the certainty in this statement?

              I for one would LOVE both these changes and have been loudly calling for them for years, but I've not heard anything to suggest they're likely. My impression is the NCAA really loves the regionals for some good reasons (cross-polinating of parts of the hockey community; the attempt to make college hockey a "Big Event" destination) and some bad reasons (great time for big fish to lord it over their little pond; G-7 style weekend get away for booze, broads, and Buicks).
              Cornell University
              National Champion 1967, 1970
              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

                Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
                Don't be shocked if they set a seating minimum, forcing schools with smaller capacities to play at neutral sites.
                That would defeat the whole purpose.

                They did not have that restriction back in the 80's. I wouldn't put it past the NC$$ to try to do it now, but I can't imagine the entire membership voting for it unless MI and MN have a lot of cash to spread around.
                Cornell University
                National Champion 1967, 1970
                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

                  Originally posted by Numbers View Post
                  Week Two: 2 Neutral Sites host 2 Quarterfinals each, with the overall bracket set so as to maximize the possibility of eastern teams being in the east and western teams in the west. This is single-elimination also
                  This or similar ideas have been talked about on USCHO for quite a few seasons now -- about as long as we've been talking about the horrible crowds and atmosphere at many of the regionals. But it still will involve a neutral site in the west with 4 teams and hardly any fans. It will eliminate bad crowds for the first round, but do nothing for second round games. Plus you have people making travel plans KNOWING they have only one day in a town. I think the choices are down to letting any school with a suitable rink bid to host (like Notre Dame did this season), leaving the format basically unchanged with the one tweak of even more movement within seed bands to ensure teams play as close to home as possible, or the 3 week/higher seeds host first two weekends format I posted.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

                    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                    Is there anything behind the certainty in this statement?
                    Absolutely nothing, other than reading the tea leaves and between the lines of everything different coaches have been lobbying for and the fact the committee head seems highly amenable to the idea of higher seeds hosting initial rounds. I think the trend away from so many people finding live sporting events -- and especially those that might not involve a team they root for -- compelling things to spend their entertainment $$$ on plays a large part in this. Home games are the last bullet to fire here in assuring decent crowds.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

                      Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
                      Absolutely nothing, other than reading the tea leaves and between the lines of everything different coaches have been lobbying for and the fact the committee head seems highly amenable to the idea of higher seeds hosting initial rounds. I think the trend away from so many people finding live sporting events -- and especially those that might not involve a team they root for -- compelling things to spend their entertainment $$$ on plays a large part in this. Home games are the last bullet to fire here in assuring decent crowds.
                      Thanks. I hope it works out as you say.
                      Cornell University
                      National Champion 1967, 1970
                      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

                        Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
                        As long as ESPN approves the format the NCAA will return in 2017 to a model that is virtually the same as what was used from 1988 through 1991, higher seeds hosting the rounds preceding the FF in a best two of 3 format. The tournament will be three weekends long and there will be no break between the second weekend and the FF. That is what most of the influential coaches want. It will obviously go a long way to ensure butts in seats and a good environment for all the games.
                        One potential issue with this (as well as my suggestion) is when the top half is dominated by one side of the country while the bottom half features a lot of team form the other side of the country. Kind of like this year. Other than BU right down the street, the nearest game for a hometown fan of Harvard, BC, Yale, Quinnipiac and Providence would be somewhere out in Michigan I think. And the current PWR rankings approach does result in clustering of conference success (OOC wins raising all boats).

                        Though I guess as long as top seed teams can fill their own seats, attendance would be fine.
                        Last edited by Crimson on the Glass; 03-23-2015, 12:45 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

                          Originally posted by Crimson on the Glass View Post
                          One potential issue with this (as well as my suggestion) is when the top half is dominated by one side of the country while the bottom half features a lot of team form the other side of the country. Kind of like this year. Other than BU right down the street, the nearest game for a hometown fan of Harvard, BC, Yale, Quinnipiac and Providence would be somewhere out in Michigan I think. And the current PWR rankings approach does result in clustering of conference success (OOC wins raising all boats).
                          We haven't seen this have really egregious results, yet, though it is possible particularly if the number of interleague connections decreases more.

                          For now I think it's actually a reason to prefer home best of 3 series in the rounds of 16 and 8. The geographical balance of the regional system is an artificial hindrance to rank-ordering the advantages of the seeding with the teams who have earned them. The worst offense is, of course, home regional hosts, which are the devil and must be eliminated in all cases. Your building size and your athletic budget should have exactly zero impact on where you play. This isn't the Senate: you can't just buy your way in.
                          Cornell University
                          National Champion 1967, 1970
                          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

                            Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
                            This or similar ideas have been talked about on USCHO for quite a few seasons now -- about as long as we've been talking about the horrible crowds and atmosphere at many of the regionals. But it still will involve a neutral site in the west with 4 teams and hardly any fans. It will eliminate bad crowds for the first round, but do nothing for second round games. Plus you have people making travel plans KNOWING they have only one day in a town. I think the choices are down to letting any school with a suitable rink bid to host (like Notre Dame did this season), leaving the format basically unchanged with the one tweak of even more movement within seed bands to ensure teams play as close to home as possible, or the 3 week/higher seeds host first two weekends format I posted.
                            I see your point totally. When I was working on this, I had a vague notion of "Where would I put the West Region in my example", and the answer seems to be Xcel energy Center. That's about the only site in the Western College Hockey World where, absent the local team's presence, you have a chance at decent crowds, simply because Minnesotans like hockey, and there are many close schools to choose from (NoDak, Duluth, Mankato, Wisconsin, etc....). And, it's hardly fair for the X to host such a thing every year, because in a year like this one, Gophers as a lower seed would have too much advantage should they advance.

                            I am more interested in your 2-out-of-3 idea. And, partly, that surprises me because the Women's Tourney has campus games for the Quarterfinals (which are Round One), and it's single elimination. I am totally on board with 2/3 better, because it's more representative of quality. Also, I think on campus you sell enough tickets that the NCAA makes up the $$ for the hotel bills. But, I am surprised that they would consider 2/3.....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: What if the Committee Decides to Makes Changes to the Tournament Design?

                              Mookie wants to see western teams. He holds that as a very important component to staging a NATIONAL tournament

                              The 1990 "regionals" had Sioux visiting WBA followed by BU heading to Munn.
                              In kith cases BU lost the opener then won the last two to make the frozen four so home and road teams can win in these instances
                              a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X